09-07-2007, 03:02 PM #1Inactive
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
I'll start us off:
(Originally posted June 24 on Websleuths)
I really believe that prior to their dinner date that fateful evening GM and KM were preparing the kids for another evening alone. I think Maddie was not too pleased with the prospect. I think she had been traumatized a couple of nights previously, remember the reports of neighbors hearing her crying for her so-called father? She was not being cooperative and might even have thrown a fit. I think GM was angry at being kept from his "fun" that evening. I think he lost his temper when trying to get her to take her sedative and either scared her so badly that her little heart gave out or he manhandled her and fatally injured her. My reference to her heart has to do with the possibility of her having a heart defect related to a mild form of CHARGE that she might have had (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHARGE_syndrome). I believe that GM panicked and convinced KM that they had to cover it up because if they didn't they would lose their medical licenses and the twins as well. I think he had time to take Maddie's body to a remote location and hide her and then return to the resort in time for dinner. I would love to know how their dinner mates felt about their behavior that night. I think KM felt no choice but to go along with her husband. Some of her body language shows some anger towards GM. Watch her in this video (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...264418,00.html) when she reads the script asking for the return of their daughter and GM nuzzles her at the end. Watch her eyes and the movement of her head and see if you don't pick up on a flash of anger towards GM. I see it right at the end when he starts rubbing on her. I thought the nuzzle looked like GM's way of saying "thanks for going along with protecting my sorry a$$". Once the deed was done they were trapped. No going back. I am not sure that they have involved anyone else in this deception (maybe the friend that said she saw a stranger carring a child?) but he could insure their silence by threating to expose their own neglect of their children. He could convince them that if they talked they would all end up investigated by the authorities.
09-07-2007, 03:08 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
A fatal and violent reaction to a sedative is the theory I am going with...
ETA: I think that this reaction could have caused her to vomit, become very sick, etc, which to me would explain finding blood spatters or bodily fluids.
Last edited by christine2448; 09-14-2007 at 01:29 PM. Reason: Added thought for clarityhttp://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...oston/pree.jpg
Beloved Taffy ~ June, 1994 - February 15, 2007.
...always in my heart...
09-07-2007, 03:32 PM #3
Since we know there is blood involved, in the car, on the wall, forensics in the cupboard, and death smell on the cat toy and Kate's clothing, we know it wasn't a soft kill. Too much bodily fluids.
I believe it was out of control anger. I think sometime within 24 hours prior to her being reported she was killed. Not neccessarily the couple of hours during dinner and the missing report. Timeline is broader in my eyes.
They wanted to swing, eat, party and Maddy interfered with those plans and wouldn't cooperate in going to sleep at night and possibly during the day for nap times like the twins so Gerry could have sex with his wife.
Being they were new parents, especially just beginning to experience a child that knew what was going on in the environment and not sleeping alot, full of energy, that was new to them. Babies sleep alot, can lay in the bed with you, while mom and dad do other things and never know. Three and four year olds makes that not likely as their more aware.
I beleive after several days of putting up with this, much to their new surprise and not being accustomed to this interuption and interference, for they did work and having a needy demanding child around 24/7 is different.
This was their first vacation with an active know it all child where they couldn't easily get to nap and do whatever grown ups do with their young in the same room.
Now I have my foundation laid down so it can be visualized as to what could have happened during the days leading up to maddy's disappearance.
The credible neighbor witness hearing maddy cry and scream is critical to the truth of the matter of how they handled things as parents with their children. I raised three babies and mine never cried and screamed, "mommy, daddy unless something was really wrong. Being in the same room with the children, what possibly could be sooooooooo wrong. Unless possibly they could be doing trial runs of seeing how maddy would react to finding herself without her parents nearby and in the room.
My theory is maddy was killed prior to them arriving at their dinner table at the bar to meet their friends. I believe they ahd already placed her body temporarily in a safe place.
The screams and crying has me leaning towards drama going on in the family dynamics. Something the parents weren't accustomed to and didn't know how to react to. Which led to her death.
I don't believe it was premeditated. Just parents being exposed to new childlike behaviors they hadn't planned on that would interfer with their daily and nightly plans.
I believe one of the parents hit Maddy causing blunt force trauma, somewhere in her torso or head, hence causing the loss of bodily fluids.
I don't see Kate accepting the plea deal. They appear to think they have all rights to carry on and mis-lead the public and police. I don't see any remorse in either one of them. Just a major protecting of themselves. Anything not to loose their positions and lifestyle.
09-07-2007, 06:12 PM #4Inactive
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
09-08-2007, 04:36 PM #5Former Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
I think it was a tussle between Kate and Maddie, possibly over cuddlecat. I agree it was not a soft kill. I know Gerry has confessed to the sedation, but I would ask: did he sedate all 3 kids that night or did he find Maddie did not need to be sedated. Did he sedate the twins to ensure they would not wake while they figured out what to do with the Maddie and twins wouldn't see what was happening?
I don't think it was premediated. I think at least 1 of the Tapas 9 other than the McCanns know what happened but I do not believe all 7 of them know.
09-08-2007, 05:43 PM #6Former Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
This is an apended version of my theory I originally posted on June 25 here at WS. And I'm sorry, but it's rather long.
Something happened in the McCann's apartment on May 3 before they went out to dinner. Her doctor parents gave the children something to sedate them at night because Mrs. Fenn had heard Madeleine crying for Mommy and Daddy on at least one other occasion. I feel the McCanns didn't want to deal with a scared child or the resort asking questions while they were supposed to be drinking with friends. Sedating the kids took care of the problem. But Madeleine overdosed or had an allergic reaction. Or under sedation, she suffered some kind of accidental death.
Nobody has said when Madeleine was last seen by anybody other than her parents or what their movements were prior to leaving for dinner. To me it's obvious that one of the McCanns did something and accidentally caused her death, and the claims of the kidnapping was a cover-up. My opinion is based on the weird behavior of the McCanns since Madeleine disappeared and their quickly-changing stories:
a. The McCanns first said that someone broke in through a jimmied door and/or window which was eventually discounted by the police and resort staff, at which time it turned into we left the patio door unlocked. Of interest, it appears as if the McCanns had to change their story once they realized the break-in theory wasn't being believed. They also stood to get in a lot of trouble for leaving their children in a locked apartment because of the fire danger.
b. The McCanns claimed they were checking on the children every 30 minutes. Soon after this turned into "one of us walked up to the apartment and listened at the door..." Only after restaurant employees said that nobody in the party left their table for two hours did we find out they weren't eyeballing them regularly. And then all of a sudden a couple weeks later Jane Tanner "remembered" that she saw a suspicious someone carrying a child wearing pajamas and wrapped in a blanket when she was rushing to join the other adults (or returned to the apartment to check on her own child- take your pick).
c. Kate McCann's screams to GM at 10:00 that "They took her", as she raced back to the restaurant without the twins. Who is "they"? Which one of her daughters is "her"? Like if she suspected that someone had kidnapped one of the children, why would she leave the twins alone?
d. Even the fact that all of the McCanns' friends trouped through the apartment before the police arrived is suspect. These are supposed to be a bunch of doctors whom we can reasonably assume are intelligent people, and surely one of them should've thought about contaminating a potential crime scene.
e. Add to the fact that absolutely nothing has been said by any of the couples who went to Portugal with the McCanns in their defense, and it makes me really suspicious of a conspiracy. The Tapas 9 employed a Pact of Silence.
f. Forgive me for thinking this, but the McCanns didn't act like grieving parents. At first they were sort of upset (although if you looked carefully, there were no tears), but even if they are personally responsible for Madeleine's death, they still loved her and miss her. They could've been reacting to guilt too. But within about two weeks they started acting normal, and I don't think it was just to put on a brave face for Sean and Amelie. Smiling and waving for cameras, smirking during interviews- they looked like anything but parents with a missing child.
g. The McCanns spent the summer flitting all over Europe. I don't fault them for making dignitaries aware of Madeleine, but they were not searching for her. Who goes to visit the Pope and tries to get an audience with Laura Bush? GM's trip to America was about other missing kids, not Madeleine. His blogs about their day were an embarrassment of jogging times, hair appointments, rushing back and forth to airports and photo opportunities, but he rarely said anything about their daughter. If Maddie had really been kidnapped, why were they poo-pooing sightings of her in Malta, Belgium and elsewhere? Is it because they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that she wasn't there?
i. When Robert Murat became an arguido, the McCanns' friends were very quick to jump on the bandwagon and start pointing fingers, but there was absolutely no evidence against him other than their testimony. It was very suspicious how the man in the tan pants carrying something in his arms quickly turned into Murat carrying Madeleine. It just sounded like they wanted someone- anyone- to be a suspect and take the spotlight off themselves. And in the meantime, the McCanns and their supporters keep throwing accusations of incompetency about the P-LE around.
j. The whole FindMadeleine fund was a huge red flag to me. What kind of people who have had a child kidnapped go out and start a fighting fund two weeks after her disappearance? Who puts up a store to sell wristbands and posters of your child- which in other missing children's cases are always free- on a website? It appeared to me as if the McCanns are turning Madeleine's disappearance into a huge money-making machine with no accountability on how the money was spent or whether they'd have to give the remainder back if she was found. GM spent a lot of time talking to funding officers about various events that really didn't seem to have much to do with finding her. And while there were restrictions about using private investigators in Portugal, if they really wanted a private team to come in and look for her, it probably would've been allowed. So why didn't the McCanns hire detectives to track Madeleine? And why didn't they go to places where child trafficking is a severe problem, like Eastern Europe?
k. Instead of returning to England and giving their twins a sense of normalcy and spending time with them, they stayed in Portugal indefinitely while Kate worked on her suntan. At the risk of appearing heartless, the McCanns looked like they were on an endless vacation. Their families took turns sending relatives out to visit, and they put their children in the resort creche almost every day. Like what kind of parents who have had one child stolen would be willing to part with the other two on a daily basis? And I really think that the McCanns were not as free to travel as they made out, because I can only think of one occasion in which both parents and the kids were allowed to leave Portugal at the same time.
l. The high-level government meddling also was a red flag. How were two seemingly insignificant doctors able to get two British prime ministers to lend their support as well as staff? And the UK media, whom I understand are usually bulldogs in digging through someone's life looking for scandal, were surprisingly muzzled about the McCanns. Instead of reporting on the neglect angle and checking with people who knew the family in Leicester, they wrote puff pieces on "tragic" Kate and Gerry. All we heard about from the UK were how the foreign news stories contained lies, vicious slurs and "hurtful, unhelpful" speculations about the McCanns. Anyone raising any negative opinions about the parents were labeled scum, or (my favorite from Phil McCann) members of a witch's coven. There was a complete black-out of all questions about the McCanns' behavior at all levels.
Last edited by CaliKid; 09-08-2007 at 08:42 PM.
09-08-2007, 08:09 PM #7Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
Tipping my hat to Colomom. Indeed.
And I would add one small adjustment to my theory:
It's kind of an "If/then" theory.
1. If we can speculate/presume that the child exhibits one (possibly more that we cannot directly observe) clinical symptoms of CHARGE syndrome (the coloboma in the eye is quite noticable), then (as some technical papers suggest), this child is very much at risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), (as well as heart related complications as Colomom stated).
2. Anethesia of a child at risk for OSA (including children with CHARGE syndrome) is a discussed in a number of clinical papers. If there is such a risk, then quite possibly, there are very real risks associated with the administration of sedatives to such a child.
3. Some individuals with CHARGE have abnormal gastro-esophageal reflux. If such a child was sedated, and vomited - the results could be deadly. Accidental, but deadly.
4. Upon discovery of Maddie by Kate, the child was quickly put into a suit case. And K McC, rushed out to begin shouting that "they took her".
For now, until we have additional information, I speculate that the death was accidental, and not an abduction. This tragic accident, caused these two parents to hide, and then bury their child. And make the requisite claims that might save their remaining family from further grief and preserve their careers/reputation within the medical community.
Hole in my theory:
Not sure, but I think this theory pretty much excludes the possibility that Maddie was already known to be dead, and was hidden or "buried", before the McC's went to party. Why? Because I am assuming that the objective of sedating Maddie, was to make her sleep through the Tappas Bar party.
Unless...Maddie was sedated sometime that day, to "test" it's effect. And that was when the accident happened. And the rest of the evening, was simply an act to create their alibi.
Technical references list the following syndromes that mimic some of the attributes of CHARGE syndrome include:
22q deletion syndrome, VATER/VACTERL association (the ears, face and hands do not look like CHARGE syndrome); Chromosome abnormalities; Retinoic embryopathy; PAX2 mutations (can cause colobomas, hearing loss and rare kidney problems).This post, and all of my previous posts made to the various incarnations of WebSleuths, is just my opinion. But I have been know to be right once or twice.
09-08-2007, 08:44 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
09-09-2007, 08:57 AM #9
Hi, new to this Forum.
I originally thought that the adbuction had been a set up for money & that Madeleine would reappear. I was immediately suspect at the statement "They've taken her, They've taken her" I also thought that was the reason for their lack of emotion because they knew she was safe & well. However, with all the emerging information it would appear that the child is unfortunately dead & therefore I have to subscribe to the school of thought that they were indeed involved.
09-09-2007, 10:01 AM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
I'm with Callikid's theory but believe that they discovered her dead only after they returned from the restaurant and she was handed off to another member of the party prior to the authorities being notified. That would account for "We've let her down" being heard as well as the body being present for 2 hrs in the apartment necessary for the cadaver dogs to pick up on the scent.
There were media reports that the family that rented the apartment subsequent to the McCann's were responsible for the blood on the wall. It may be very much like the Laci case in which their were numerous leaks about blood in the home that never materialized...the reports of blood galvanized the public relations campaign against the defendant....and you can feel the tide turning against the McCann's.
09-09-2007, 12:13 PM #11Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Hoffman Estates, IL
This may seem fat-fetched, but I'm going to say it anyway.
In reading the daily blog, my first thought was "This blog is an effort to communicate information--but in a code-like fashion."
I'm assuming that the McCann's phones and e-mail accounts were being tapped, and they most likely could not sit around and chat with the Tapas bar friends. What if one or more of these friends WAS involved in the cover-up? How could the McCann's communicate with them and let them know what was going on?
These stupid references to breakfast and jogging and whatnot--could they mean something else?
Or do I just watch too much TV?He's guilty. Get over it.
09-09-2007, 01:13 PM #12
WHY would she leave the two twins alone when she just found her one daughter missing..........
WHY did she say "THEY took HER"; if that is in fact exactly what she said. Can anyone verify this? This sounds like a staged comment. THEY - who is they?? why did she say they? and HER - her who? There was another little girl in that room.
Wouldn't you think she would have said something more along the lines of "Maddie is not in the apartment" or "Maddie isn't in her bed" -
NOT - THEY TOOK HER!!!!!
In a way it sounds to me like a rehearsed script -
So often times it happens that we live our life in chains, and we never even know we have the key. ...Eagles, "Already Gone"
09-09-2007, 02:59 PM #13Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
09-09-2007, 04:50 PM #14Inactive
- Join Date
- May 2007
Copy/pasted under instruction from colomom
I have believed from the very beginning (colomom can verify) that Madeleine died as a result of an accident in the apartment, I feel this was bought on by Gerrys temper as she was playing up because she knew they were going out to party, I do believe she had been sedated but I dont believe this is what killed her, I feel Gerry grabbed her in a rage and she smacked her head and even possibly broke her neck, they knew as Dr's that they couldn't deny the way she died (and sedatives in the system) and they went into a blind panic. I believe he took control, Kate cleaned the apartment and he went and hid her, I feel it happened at bathtime @6.37 and he had her hidden by 8pm in a remote spot within a few miles of the apartment, I do feel he must have had use of a car at that time because I feel he took her out of the apartment in a suitcase and put it in the back of a car (NOT the one he later hired) I haven't been able to verify his having the use of a car, but I feel he could already have hold of some car keys (from the 'swinging' time they were having) or he could have asked one of the other group to borrow it as he had to run an errand?
I think Madeleine is laying in barren/scrubland or parkland, I really dont believe (and having been there cant see how or where he could have thrown her into the sea) I dont think that would fit the profile of a father who had accidently killed his child, he was her father at the end of the day and didn't intend for this to happen, I cant see that he could dispose of her in a bin, as I mentioned I could not see anywhere near the church where she could be....
I think she must be wrapped in a sheet/blanket or large towel as he couldn't bare to look at what he had done, she could even still be in the suitcase or one of those 'clothes protectors' - you know the ones you use to protect suits/dresses when travelling... there are rocks everywhere in these remote spots and he could have placed rocks/large cement blocks on top of her...
I think they will find her and am incredibly anxious to know where...
This is getting a bit long but just quickly to say, I think Kate will confess, I think the PJ could know its Gerry but is seeing if Kate will crack if they imply it is her, or if Gerry will stand by and let her take the wrap for it... once she has confessed he will have no choice but to lead the PJ to her little body - I think they should be the ones responsible for at last giving their child the proper burial she deserves...
All unbelievable I know, to think these two could have gone to dinner after their child had just been laid out somewhere... I dont think they have fully come to terms with it themselves, they are in utter denial...
ALL IMHO of course...
09-10-2007, 01:17 AM #15
Don't know if this theory has been mentioned....I can hardly keep up!!!!!
Everyone is so focused on the night she was reported missing, thinking things through, this may have been mentioned, but I'm wondering if something happened BEFORE the dinner party, she was already dead and moved...then dinner (alibi maybe) and return, she's gone!
This is my theory at THIS moment, subject to change at any moment after THIS one!